Published On: Tue, Mar 2nd, 2021

Credibility and dignified parts sacrificed in acts of UK Government vaccine programme desperation

At the weekend just gone, UK Government was claiming that nearly 20 million people had received a first dose of “Covid-19 vaccine”, and of course there was a good deal of gloating about a magnificent thing  achieved.

However, Soviet-style  tractor production statistics, boasted of for the glory of the State, are never as straight forward as they appear – if they aren’t full out lies. As they apply to the UK Government’s vaccine product dispensing programme, they disguise the fact of one huge shambles.

A fact rarely mentioned anywhere in any media these days, it seems, is that people who  have one jab of either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines, must have a second one 21 days later. As meaningless, unofficially speaking, as these injections are in the face of the fraud of “Covid-19” (unless the intent is to cause vaccine damage), they officially become less effective if a second dose is not dispensed at the stipulated time – for a fuller briefing, the reader should look at the FBEL article, No UK Government Vaccine Triumph Suggests No Culling Of The Over-80s, Actually.  The bottom line, though, is that if nearly 20 million have had a first dose, only a few hundred thousand less than that did not have a second jab when they were supposed to. Thus, the very appropriate use of the descriptor, shambles.

To bring things up to date, according to the ONS data available to the public, as of 21st February, there had been 510,649 second doses administered (xls download). In contrast, as of 31st January, three weeks earlier, there had been 8,100,135 first doses given (xls download). Clearly, millions of people who were being “vaccinated” through December and January have not received a second dose when they should have. In fact, between 31st January and 21st February, only 52,870 more people had received a second jab. This is against the some 7 million who should have had one. And to put things entirely in perspective – in other words, for an understanding about how the “vaccination” programme is purely about theatre and creating the capacity to brag about how many are compliant with UK Government agenda – while  786,000 people had had their first jab by 27th December, at two months later, only a fraction of those people had received their second.

The “vaccine” programme is in a mess in more than this one way, of course, in that all things betray it having come up already against the much feared (by UK Government) hard core resistance to it. Firstly, there was the plain admission last week that the rate of administering the product had slowed. The Daily Mail talked about the “lagging vaccine roll-out”, and The Guardian reported the following:

The number of Covid vaccines administered in the UK has fallen by over a third in the last week as ministers warned of a short-term dip in supply coupled with stockpiling to ensure people get second doses within the recommended 12-week limit.

Naturally, what the consumer of this is supposed to know, at strict instruction by UK Government we don’t doubt, is that demand is outstripping supply; or, to put it another way:

Though there’s always plenty of tractors, there’s never one for you, Ivan!

Please note that the 12-week limit is the new idea by the UK Government that goes against the stipulations of the pharmaceutical companies who manufactured the vaccine products. Here, of course, it is presented in language that is designed to deceive the audience that there is a point in continuing in the process, and that it is not the case, officially speaking, that any and all jabs, with the three month gap between them, may well be redundant.

Perhaps the best evidence that “vaccine” take-up had been grinding to a halt because of resistance was the very recent deployment of none other than her royal lowness, the Queen, the front for the imposter in power, the Crown, to try and whip up some enthusiasm. Actually, what this loathsome medusa did was use the standard tactic, even now despite a lot of discrediting of the practice, of comparing the combating of a “plague” with the fighting of a war so that everyone must overlook their individual rights, and comply unthinkingly – “everybody [has]… the same idea”, are her words –  for the collective good, better known as UK Government agenda.

What was striking about this intervention was that it was done from the context of an internet meeting room application, so that the Queen became yet another talking head in a computer screen window. And it might be the case that, these days, there is not so much a need for the dignified part of UK Government  as bestowed on it by the magnificence and mystery of the Monarch (as explained in the FBEL article, Delegitimising Parliament: Why “We The People” Must Stop Voting), but  it looks like a decision has been made to sacrifice it completely to try and get the “vaccine reluctant”, as people who quite reasonably don’t want to be injured by an injection are being called, to go against their better judgement,

That the Queen took part in what is a very scruffy way of communicating looking like she had come to open a village fete can only make her look more irrelevant and surfeit – ridiculous – than she already is. In the end, it doesn’t matter if she had the gall (with us knowing about that golden piano she owns) to imply that decent, liberty loving people ought to “think about other people rather than themselves” so that UK Government can fight the actual war on them, because the days of the Monarchy in Britain must now be numbered, and one has to wonder if UK Government didn’t completely miscalculate with this miserable stunt.

As desperate as the Queen’s intervention was, perhaps it doesn’t indicate UK Government anxiety about its “vaccination” programme as much as having the execrable Peter Hitchens sacrifice his credibility with that portion of his audience who won’t apologise for the most shocking example of his stock-in-trade, bait-and-switch-to-spread-defeat-mongering yet presented during the whole course of this fake pandemic fiasco.  The problem isn’t that Hitchens received a “vaccination” jab, according to his Mail on Sunday column over the weekend just gone (we don’t need to believe that he did any such thing, actually), it’s that he all too obviously took the opportunity when writing about it, and about his decision, to execute a part in a greater psychological operation to create an impression of an unstoppable vaccine juggernaut (which doesn’t exist), and in doing so taught defeatism to an audience that is generally so thick, as has been said before on these pages (see the FBEL article, This is what you want… This is what you get), that Hitchens needs to spell out that he is leading it up a garden path. That being said, this audience – again, as pointed out before on one of the many occasions that the author has taken Hitchens to task –  “is looking for solace and leadership in a traumatic time”, but only finds betrayal, whether it is conscious of it or not, with the odious and wretched Hitchens. And this is a appalling situation, and it needs to be condemned, and anyone who defends or apologises for Hitchens is on his same side – and there will be a little treatment of this idea to round out this piece (with a fuller exploration needed and tentatively planned in future).

If the reader has not seen the excretion by Hitchens’ in question, then there will undoubtedly be an expectation that the author will describe it, and explain the problem exactly. This is something to come, of course, but first let us all examine the root cause of why Hitchens was so very detestable in producing it.

If the UK Government is indeed looking to implement what is called a vaccine passport, then it won’t want a sizeable refusenik community, because can you imagine, reader, the trouble that it will be storing up for itself? It will create a sub-population, a minority, albeit a very large one, who will constitute a second class citizenship in the country on account of a choice it made to preserve its health against medicine that demonstrably does damage to a good many recipients. This is problematic: not only will this apartheid not look very good for a government claiming to cherish human rights, but there will be a legal minefield, not to mention how this separated people will take to its own devices, and inevitably out-compete the regulated mainstream, and become a major threat to the continuation of the power of UK Government.

If there is any well proportioned refusal of the “Covid-19 vaccine”, then a vaccine passport is just not viable. This is why Hitchens has been detailed to have his audience reconcile with what it is being told is inevitable. And this is why Hitchens chose this time to write about having a vaccination, and his reasons for it – and it’s not the first time he made the same sort of timely intervention.

The following quotes cover the key elements of Hitchens’ most criminal offering to date:

So sorry, Your Majesty, but I have had my first Covid vaccination for wholly selfish reasons. I did not do it for the good of others but for my own convenience. And I will have my second for the same purpose.

A very important part of my family now lives abroad and I am deeply tired of not being able to see them. I get the strong sense that any sort of travel, and plenty of other things, will be impossible if I don’t have the necessary vaccine certificate…

For me, the vaccination was a gloomy submission to a new world of excessive safety and regulation. I’d tried to fight against it but I lost.

The New Jerusalem, in which we allow the state to boss us around even more, in the name of our own good, is now coming into being.

What hasn’t featured here is a blame for Hitchens’ predicament being attributed to Tony Blair, which is bizarre, but perhaps a trick using an old punching Judy that his audience is familiar with, so that there can be distancing of people’s selves from their own responsibility, and identification with the self-fulfilling sullen tyrannised and put-upon of Hitchens’ prophesy.  In any case, the first thing to note in the extract is the way that the whole piece is framed initially, which is as a response to the Queen’s idea that refuseniks are selfish. As Hitchens wants his audience to believe in the right of the Pharaoh to rule, he will of course address the Queen in that lickspittle manner. What is important is that there is truth in Hitchens’ twist-around: people who go-along to get-along will take the “vaccine”. We can surmise that this device is for the moral cowards in his audience (and there will be many), who if they must defy the Queen, will do it respectfully, and in fact not at all, but at the same time in their double-think occupy the same shoes as Hitchens’ as a rebel against the authority that has clearly been abusing them, for the sake of maintenance of self-respect. In short, it’s a signal to that portion of Hitchens’ audience who would breathe a sigh of relief, and go ahead, and go-along to get-along as normal.

As for the main offense being committed by Hitchens, as can be seen, it is the assumption of the certainty of a vaccine passport – which is far from inevitable, as discussed above – used as the motivation for having not one, please notice, but two “vaccine” shots: because people must continue in the process to the end, also as discussed above.

Then there is the part that is quintessentially Hitchensian, in that his fight lost has resulted in repercussions for everyone. Quite clearly, reader, Hitchens is saying that a future in which there would be a vaccine passport for everyone, or not, depended on his fight, and because he has given up, it means that there is no other hope to be had, and there must be acquiescence – and the narcissism and the messianic complex, or the obvious arrogance to think that an audience would, without rejection, allow in him these traits (albeit sub-consciously, because Hitchens’ know-nothing-know-it-all readership is generally too stupid to be conscious) is why this piece of writing, even given Hitchens’ previous history of defeat-preaching, is so particularly offensive. It goes beyond the attempt to speak for everyone that features in his previous wormtonguery.

Speaking of his evidently being a holder of the office of the Christ, in a particularly cheeky flourish, Hitchens presumably appeals to other freemasons in his audience by referring to the new order as New Jerusalem. The author is not being flippant, and is making a well informed guess, because in the context being used by Hitchens, this is a reference to the Masonic utopia, or the completion of the Great Work (which is indeed about an individual’s development towards godhood, but also a trope referring to a wider social outcome). So, again, the piece works on two levels: instructing those who would be willing but were awaiting leadership, but also demoralising those who would refuse.

Taking these key extracts apart, the first refutation one can make is that by no means has Hitchens been fighting against “a new world of excessive safety and regulation”. Instead, he has been teaching compliance to a transitory form of it (i.e. “I beg everyone to stick strictly to rules this weekend, so this idiotic threat [to make them harsher] is not fulfilled.” [see here]), and whispering despair in the ears of people who might disobey so that it would be denied (i.e. “We will never get out of this now. It will go on for ever. We will not be free people again.” [see here]). This much has already been documented at FBEL.

Please see the abovementioned article to begin to become fully acquainted with the issues, but briefly it can be said here that there has been further cause to complain against Hitchens for teaching uber compliance by being photographed wearing no less than a gasmask on a train; for inventing the notion that masks are muzzles (and other things intended to make a wearer feel as if he was being humiliated) and thus causing despondency in what must have been a large portion of his own audience; for gaslighting most brutally in one particularly significant piece in which he asserted that everyone was already wearing a mask, when it was not true (and this was as timely an intervention as this latest one, because it came ahead of the UK Government’s policy on mandatory face coverings in supermarkets). There was also the proposition that Hitchens made regarding a system whereby people could be permitted to be maskless in return for submitting to track and trace. At the time, this criticism was made: “the progression is all too obvious: the end of social distancing could be a condition for taking the vaccine”, and this observation too:

Next up is vaccines – perhaps. There will be lots of noise made – especially about mandatory ones. People will get frit to smithereens by the incessant chatter, and there will be lots of bluster, but underneath no support for those who object to being interfered with in such a way.

The author doesn’t read Hitchens as a matter of course, but what had been dug out from but a few pieces of his output was enough by which to condemn him.

The general criticism levelled at Hitchens is that he has taught his audience that the UK Government’s reaction to a disease – which, the author would add, he has never striven to explain in terms of its dependency on ACE2  to show that any mitigation measures (concerned with stopping spread) were not only unreasonable but unnecessary  (and is not unlike all alternative media in that respect) – was a panicked mistake which would not be relented from [see here].  This is actually the cardinal sin, because it promulgates the belief that “a new world of excessive safety and regulation”  is something being blundered into, and not deliberately steered towards. Thus, Hitchens disarms all who read and believe him. (Ironically, of course, from Hitchens’ perspective, then, it would mean that all that Hitchens has been opposing is the outcome reached by accident – and perhaps this is a deception much too subtle for the people who were inspired by his apparent stance to buy his books and otherwise invest in him).

All things being equal, this Hitchens incident should be a watershed moment for alternative media audiences. Because it’s long past time people realised that they are not observers, utilising what they perceive to be their powers of discernment in regards to who and what will form or, more likely, echo their views, but in fact, and instead, they are merely, nearly always very vulnerable prey in a world that is consumed by war. It’s not a game, reader, that Hitchens, or any other outlet, works tirelessly to manipulate you into a new order that will be detrimental to your interests. It’s a matter of war. Many an alternative media consumer will apologise for their choice of media influencer of media producer when it is clearly discredited by saying that, yes there is this problem, but otherwise there is all this other good information, or otherwise this person or organisation represents the way I think. But actually, anyone who does this is choosing to be prey. It’s because people can’t make the right choices in this very crucial area (being babies, anyone telling them home truths is rejected) that they are suffering to be prey to the extent they are, a whole year in to an economic blockade waged on them. And the folly needs to end.

In the meantime, an alternative media consumer walks into a trap set by a hungry hunter at every turn, for has the reader ever noticed the alternative media network of exclusivity, a mesh of references, studiously avoiding the promotion of anyone who has to remain marginalised, across the high profile alternative media and fringe corporate-media and pre-911 attitude blogosphere, that is always iterating the product of its own ilk? It is a phenomenon best seen on Twitter – and on Twitter, all these media content producers that are being referred to routinely retweet to support Hitchens.

So, the author could tell you that as things stand, these characters have no credibility, and have been caught out by an act of desperation, but why don’t you, reader, find out for yourself. There are many ways that these media content producers and influencers are trying to save their face, other than react to explicitly condemn Hitchens for what he is  – that’s if they have reacted at all†. They mostly talk about Hitchens’ right to choose to be vaccinated, but as has been discussed in this piece, this is not the point, and is a misdirection. They also act as if Hitchens has made a one-off faux pas, but this is not true, as Hitchens is a constant combatant in the psychological warfare of online and print and visual media, and anyone trying to excuse their devotion to Hitchens on this or any other basis will not ultimately do so, and they will fail, as Hitchens must now fail.


† Here’s an example of another type, from an ex Associate Editor for Infowars (who has caused comment in these pages before [see here]), which is appealing to the cult of Hitchens, and drawing on the effect that Hitchens devised to make, and reiterating his central message, as it clearly implies that his surrender is a defeat for everyone, because it portends further defeat. Retweeting Hitchens’ own promotion of his column, it adds:

There’s something deeply tragic about this column by Peter Hitchens, the blaring sound of silence of hoisting a white flag. Doesn’t bode well at all…

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 3 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Steven says:

    Paul, great article.

    I fear the propaganda will ramp up later in the year. The HSJ reported today that NHS in London have been told to expect a surge in cases around July and August. If that likely scenario unfolds it will no doubt be blamed on those yet to be “vaccinated”. By then expect to see several bought and paid for studies that will claim the concoction will stop transmission by around the 97%.

  2. ikaraki says:

    This is a banger! An excellent read, irrespective of the given examples, Hitchens and Winsor, many good points are raised about following blindly. The third from last paragraph, beginning “(a)ll things being equal”, is a thought provoker and a particular highlight to me. The propaganda machine will trundle on, not sure where all the critical thinking went..

  3. Catherine says:

    Two messages to be pushed;’though they are contradictory.
    1) If you’re vaccinated, you have nothing to fear from the rest of us – symptomatic or otherwise.
    2) Manufacturers have never claimed the vaccine prevents you from getting the disease – only that it reduces symptoms.
    The media need to decide what the vaccine actually achieves or doesn’t. All they’ve sown is confusion; but I guess that was always their aim.